many words which could be read in very different ways. This
variety of possible readings was at first very great, and many
readers seem to have actually made it their object to
discover pronunciations which were new, provided they
were at all appropriate to the ambiguous text. There
was also a dialectic licence in grammatical forms, which
had not as yet been greatly restricted. An effort was made by many
to establish a more refined pronunciation for the Koran than was
usual in common life or in secular literature. The various schools
of “readers” differed very widely from one another; although for
the most part there was no important divergence as to the sense of
words. A few of them gradually rose to special authority, and the
rest disappeared. Seven readers are generally reckoned chief
authorities, but for practical purposes this number was continually
reduced in process of time; so that at present only two “reading-styles”
are in actual use,—the common style of Ḥafṣ, and that of
Nāfi’; which prevails in Africa to the west of Egypt. There is,
however, a very comprehensive massoretic literature in which a
number of other styles are indicated. The invention of vowel-signs
of diacritic points to distinguish similarly formed consonants, and
of other orthographic signs, soon put a stop to arbitrary conjectures
on the part of the readers. Many zealots objected to the introduction
of these innovations in the sacred text, but theological consistency
had to yield to practical necessity. In accurate codices,
indeed, all such additions, as well as the titles of the sūra, &c., are
written in coloured ink, while the black characters profess to represent
exactly the original of Othmān. But there is probably no copy
quite faithful in this respect. Moreover, the right recitation of the
Koran is an art which even people of Arab tongue can only learn with
great difficulty. In addition to the nuances of pronunciation already
alluded to, there is a semi-musical modulation. In these matters
also the various schools differ.
In European libraries, besides innumerable modern manuscripts of the Koran, there are also codices, or fragments, of high antiquity, some of them probably dating from the 1st century of the Flight. For the restoration of the text, however, the works of ancient scholars on its readings and modes Manuscripts. of writing are more important than the manuscripts; which, however elegantly they may be written and ornamented, proceed from irresponsible copyists. The original, written by Othmān himself, has indeed been exhibited in various parts of the Mahommedan world. The library of the India Office contains one such manuscript, bearing the subscription: “Written by ‘Othmān the son of ʽAffān.” These, of course, are barefaced forgeries, although of very ancient date; so are those which profess to be from the hand of ʽAlī, one of which is preserved in the same library. In recent times the Koran has been often printed and lithographed, both in the East and the West. In Mahommedan countries lithography alone is employed.
Shortly after Mahomet’s death certain individuals applied themselves to the exposition of the Koran. Much of it was obscure from the beginning, other sections were unintelligible apart from a knowledge of the circumstances of their origin. Unfortunately, those who took possession of this field Commentators. were not very honourable. Ibn ʽAbbās, a cousin of Mahomet, and the chief source of the traditional exegesis of the Koran, has, on theological and other grounds, given currency to a number of falsehoods; and at least some of his pupils have emulated his example. These earliest expositions dealt more with the sense and connexion of whole verses than with the separate words. Afterwards, as the knowledge of the old language declined, and the study of philology arose, more attention began to be paid to the explanation of vocables. A good many fragments of this older theological and philological exegesis have survived from the first two centuries of the Flight, although we have no complete commentary of this period. The great commentary of Ṭabarī, A.D. 839–923, of which for the last few years we have possessed an Oriental edition in 30 parts (Cairo A.H. 1321 = A.D. 1903), is very full when it comes to speak of canonical law, as well as in its accounts of the occasions of the several revelations; for, as in his great historical work, he faithfully records a large number of traditions with the channels by which they have come down to us (genealogical trees, isnād). In other respects the hopes based upon this commentary have not been fulfilled.
Another very famous commentary is that of Zamakhsharī (A.D. 1075–1144), edited by Nassau-Lees, Calcutta, 1859; but this scholar, with his great insight and still greater subtlety, is too apt to read his own scholastic ideas into the Koran. The favourite commentary of Baiḍāwī (d. A.D. 1286), edited by Fleischer (Leipzig, 1846–1848), is little more than an abridgment of Zamakhsharī’s. Thousands of commentaries on the Koran, some of them of prodigious size, have been written by Moslems; and even the number of those still extant in manuscript is by no means small. Although these works all contain much that is useless or false, yet they are invaluable aids to our understanding of the sacred book. An unbiased European can, no doubt, see many things at a glance more clearly than a good Moslem who is under the influence of religious prejudice; but we should still be helpless without the exegetical literature of the Mahommedans. Even the Arabian Moslems would only understand the Koran very dimly and imperfectly if they did not give special attention to the study of its interpretation. The advantage of being in a language commonly understood, which the holy book claims for itself, has vanished in the course of thirteen centuries. According to the dominant view, however, the ritual use of the Koran is not in the least concerned with the sacred words being understood, but solely with their being quite properly recited. Nevertheless, a great deal remains to be accomplished by European scholarship for the correct interpretation of the Koran. We want, for example, an exhaustive classification and discussion of all the Jewish elements in the Koran; a praiseworthy beginning was made in Geiger’s youthful essay Was hat Mohamed aus dem Judenthum aufgenommen? (Bonn, 1833; the “second revised edition,” Leipzig, 1902, is only a reprint). We want especially a thorough commentary, executed Translations. with the methods and resources of modern science. No European language, it would seem, can even boast of a translation which completely satisfies modern requirements. The best are in English; where we have the extremely paraphrastic, but for its time admirable translation of George Sale (repeatedly printed), that of Rodwell (1861), which seeks to give the pieces in chronological order, and that of Palmer (1880), who wisely follows the traditional arrangements. The introduction which accompanies Palmer’s translation is not in all respects abreast of the most recent scholarship. Considerable extracts from the Koran are well translated in E. W. Lane’s Selections from the Kur-ān. Not much can be said in praise of the complete translations into the German language, neither of that of Ullmann, which has appeared in several editions, nor of that of Henning (Leipzig) and Grigull (Halle), all of them shallow amateurs who have no notion of the difficulties to be met with in the task, and are almost entirely dependent on Sale. Friedrich Rückert’s excellent version (published by August Müller, Frankfort-on-Maine, 1888) gives only selections. M. Klamroth’s translation of the fifty oldest sūras, Die fünfzig ältesten Suren (Hamburg, 1890) attempts successfully to reproduce the rhymed form of the originals. The publication of the translation of the Koran by the great Leipzig Arabic scholar, H. L. Fleischer (d. 1888) has so far unfortunately been delayed. (For modern editions, commentaries, &c., see Mahommedan Religion: Bibliography).
Besides commentaries on the whole Koran, or on special parts and topics, the Moslems possess a whole literature bearing on their sacred book. There are works on the spelling and right pronunciation of the Koran, works on the beauty of its language, on the number of its verses, words and letters, &c.; nay, there are even works which would nowadays be called “historical and critical introductions.” Moreover, the origin of Arabic philology is intimately connected with the recitation and exegesis of the Koran. To exhibit the importance of the sacred book for the whole mental life of the Moslems would be simply to write the history of that life itself; for there is no department in which its all-pervading, but unfortunately not always salutary, influence has not been felt.
The unbounded reverence of the Moslems for the Koran reaches its climax in the dogma that this book, as the divine word, i.e. thought, is immanent in God, and consequently eternal and uncreated. This dogma, which was doubtless due to the influence of the Christian doctrine of the eternal Eternity of the Koran. Word of God, has been accepted by almost all Mahommedans since the beginning of the 3rd century. Some theologians did indeed protest against it with great energy; it was in fact too preposterous to declare that a book composed of unstable words and letters, and full of variants, was absolutely divine. But what were the distinctions and sophisms of the theologians for, if they could not remove such contradictions, and convict their opponents of heresy?
Bibliography.—The following works may be especially consulted: Weil, Einleitung in den Korān (2nd ed., 1878); Th. Nöldeke, Geschichte des Qorān’s (Göttingen, 1860; 2nd ed. by Friedrich Schwally, 1908); the Lives of Mahomet by William Muir and Aloys Sprenger (vols. i.-iii., Berlin, 1861–1865; 2nd ed., 1869); C. Snouck Hurgronje, Het mekkaansche Feest (Leiden, 1880), De Islam (de Gids, 1886, ii. 257–273, 454–498, iii. 90–134); “Une nouvelle biographie de Mohammed,” Revue de l’histoire des religions, tome 29, p. 48 f., 149 sqq.; Leone Caetani, Annali dell’ Islam, i. (Milan, 1905), ii.(Milan, 1907); Frants Buhl, Muhammeds Liv (Copenhagen, 1903). (Th. N.; Fr. Sy.)
KORAT, the capital of the provincial division (Monton) of Nakawn Racha Sema, or “the frontier country,” in Siam; in 102° 5′ E., 14° 59′ N. Pop. about 7000, mixed Cambodian and Siamese. It is the headquarters of a high commissioner and of an army division. It is the terminus of a railway from Bangkok, 170 m. distant, and the distributing centre for the whole of the plateau district which forms the eastern part of Siam. There are copper mines of reputed wealth in the neighbourhood. It is the centre of a silk-growing district and is the headquarters of the government sericultural department, instituted in 1904 with the assistance of Japanese experts for the purpose of improving the quality of Siamese silk. The government is that of an ordinary provincial division of Siam. A French vice-consul resides here. Since the founding of Ayuthia in the 14th century,
